ouncilmembers such as Harold Brazil continue to win the spin game
characterizing the pending Omnibus Business Regulatory Reform Act of 1998 as real
"reform." The 97-page bill, however, is puff.

Much of the bill calls for
study, not reform. Issues like health regulation, zoning, and street vending are dealt
with by establishing new task forces to prepare new recommendations. We don't need more
study; by now the recommendations are well known.

The bill's largest section is not about regulatory reform at all, but about authorizing
fraternal benefit societies to issue insurance. Fundamental reforms recommended by the
Business Regulatory Reform Commission last summer, are ignored: (1) Consolidate all
permit-approval offices together; (2) upgrade the technologically-ancient regulatory
system; and (3) provide long-sought tools for improved enforcement. These reforms would
make a huge difference. They would radically improve timeliness, substantially reduce
errors, and protect the integrity of the regulatory system. They would also reduce the
long lines at city permit counters.

Most egregious, however, is that there was no opportunity for public comment on the
bill. It was a stealth bill  introduced at Thanksgiving, marked up Christmas Eve,
and passed over New Year's. The Council waived several rules to do this.

There were mistakes as a result. The bill would eliminate Boards which the Chief
Financial Officer says are necessary to obtain federal grants. It would permit the closing
of public streets by a process which the Corporation Counsel says violates the Home Rule
Act. Changes to the historic landmark process are "likely to create prolonged
litigation," according to the D.C. Preservation League. Health care professionals are
alarmed that the bill requires reciprocity with national accrediting associations, an
untried concept. These mistakes occurred because the bill was never vetted. Harold Brazil
admits that the bill is flawed. But he pushed for passage anyway because he wanted to beat
the Control Board which has undertaken its own study and submits its own recommendations
to Congress this week. "This is about relevancy," he said at the time.

When he learned that I, on behalf of the Committee of 100, had written the Control
Board asking that the bill be sent back to the Council, Harold Brazil told the Northwest
Current: that I was "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." But flawed
legislation is a mistake.

Sending the bill back to the Council would enable public scrutiny through hearings on
the bill. It would also enable the Council to consider divergent recommendations with the
Control Board's study and to correct the acknowledged flaws.

There is nothing wrong with this, and it would continue to involve the Council and the
public, as should have been the case all along.